WAS THE LAW FULFILLED OR ABOLISHED?

[GodsGrace]

I am following none of the 613 laws.

This is because I believe Paul when he writes that the law has been abolished (Ephesians 2) or, equivalently as in Romans 7, that we no longer serve in the 'oldness of the letter' (an obviously allusion to the Law).

Do I commit murder? No. Adultery? No. Do I covet my neighbor's donkey? Again no.

I bet you will argue that this last sentence means I am really still following the moral law.

Well, not really. Consonant with Paul's argument, I am following the indwelling Spirit.

If the Spirit is unable to let me know that murder is wrong, without me having to consult a list in the Old Testament, then what does that say about the Spirit?

If the Spirit is all that is necessary....why was the N.T. written?
Why did Paul write about all the things we are not to do.
What do chapters 6 and 7 of Romans mean?
Maybe we should just stop reading the bible alltogether?

And when you get married,,,don't ever tell your wife that it
really bothers you when she gets home late, just depend on the fact that she loves you.
Let's see how that works out.

And where does it say that the Moral Law was abolished?
Drew,,,if you're following the commandments,,,it means the Moral Law was not abolished.

As you've said yourself....you don't sacrifice animals, do you?

 

[GodsGrace]

I will wait to read more. To be fair, the fact that you have taught a subject does not ensure your position is correct. I, too, have studied the scriptures extensively and I would not make the claims I am making if I did not believe they were Biblically defensible.

Studying scripture and having to study a particular part of scripture is totally different.
You can only gather so much from verses.

Did you look up what I said while I was gone?

It's not MY POSITION that is right or wrong...
theologians have studied this and have written books on it.

What did you find out?
Doing study is a good way to learn, especially when you don't trust the person telling
you something.

We have google now,,,,check it out.

 

[GodsGrace]

The LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS has set me free from the law of sin and death

Hi Episcopius....
I think we here all agree with you.

Many of the O.T. Laws brought with them death to the sinner.
Some disobedience to the Law was punishable by death.
Now, even though we disobey the Law, we no longer die from it....
we remain spiritually alive because Jesus has died on our behalf for all
the sins we will have in our body due to the sin nature we are born with.

But, thanks be to God, that with the help of the Holy Spirit, we are made capable
of following and walking in the spirit and not in the flesh as we did before.
Romans 8:12 tells us that through the power of the Holy Spirit we are able to defeat
the old sinful nature.

 

[Drew]

If the Spirit is all that is necessary....why was the N.T. written?

I do not understand why you are asking me this question. The NT was written to document Jesus' teaching, His death, and resurrection. And to provide some moral guidance. How is this relevant to my assertion that the Law of Moses has been retired?

Why did Paul write about all the things we are not to do.

Again, you seem to think that because I believe the Law of Moses has been retired, I also believe that we cannot benefit from divinely inspired moral guidance. I am partly at fault here. When I have written that we don't need the Law because we have the Spirit, that was very misleading. What I should have written was that between the indwelling Spirit and the New Testament teachings, we don't need the Law anymore.

Have you answered my question about what Paul means when he writes that we have been released from the Law and no longer serve in the "oldness of the letter"? I would think this will be a challenge for you. But, we'll see.

And where does it say that the Moral Law was abolished

Paul writes in Romans 7 that we have been released from the Law. And in Ephesians 2 he writes that the Law has been abolished.

You (and others) have decided, without Biblical warrant, to artificially break the Law into categories. And then to compound the problem, you then, again without Biblical justification, decide that one part of the Law is over (e.g. ceremonial) and another part (e.g. moral) remains in force.

Drew,,,if you're following the commandments,,,it means the Moral Law was not abolished.

No it doesn't. And a simple analogy demonstrates this. If the government abolishes the law against speeding, and I choose not to speed, does that fact mean the government has not, in fact, abolished the speeding law? Of course not!

As you've said yourself....you don't sacrifice animals, do you?

Of course I don't. But how does that fact support your position?

 

[Drew]

Studying scripture and having to study a particular part of scripture is totally different.
You can only gather so much from verses.

Did you look up what I said while I was gone?

It's not MY POSITION that is right or wrong...
theologians have studied this and have written books on it.

What did you find out?
Doing study is a good way to learn, especially when you don't trust the person telling
you something.

We have google now,,,,check it out.

This appears to be the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Let's discuss the relevant Biblical texts.

 

[GodsGrace]

I do not understand why you are asking me this question. The NT was written to document Jesus' teaching, His death, and resurrection. And to provide some moral guidance. How is this relevant to my assertion that the Law of Moses has been retired?

It's relevant because the Moral Law is still in effect and the N.T. is chock full of laws that Jesus and Paul left us with. I had posted some letters and verses in a previous post but I see that it's useless.

Again, you seem to think that because I believe the Law of Moses has been retired, I also believe that we cannot benefit from divinely inspired moral guidance. I am partly at fault here. When I have written that we don't need the Law because we have the Spirit, that was very misleading. What I should have written was that between the indwelling Spirit and the New Testament teachings, we don't need the Law anymore.

No. I don't believe you live your life sinning.
I believe we all live by divinely inspired guidance...This is the Law in our heart.
You see, it hasn't been abolished,,,just moved from the head to the heart. Ezekiel, Jeremiah.

Have you answered my question about what Paul means when he writes that we have been released from the Law and no longer serve in the "oldness of the letter"? I would think this will be a challenge for you. But, we'll see.

Why would it be a challenge!
Do you mean Romans 7:6?
6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
As we Christians like to say....
The letter of the law kills...
but the Spirit brings life.

Actually, I've already explained this just before...

Chapter 7 speaks about the Law as being like a husband.
When a husband dies a woman is free from him and able to marry again.
The Jews were under a severe Law which they were to follow, but had not the possibility of following it with only their MIND.

Now that Jesus has died on the cross and come back to life...we are married to HIM, but we still must produce good fruit. See verse 4

Now we serve God with the heart, as is stated in Ezekiel 36:26 when God says He will place a new heart within us...a heart of flesh. And also Jeremiah 31:33...God will PLACE THE LAW into our heart....He did not say it would become obsolete...just moved from the mind to the heart.
This was speaking of the New Covenant, BTW.

Paul writes in Romans 7 that we have been released from the Law. And in Ephesians 2 he writes that the Law has been abolished.

Please post verses. I think I've pretty much covered what Paul meant...please explain if you disagree.

You (and others) have decided, without Biblical warrant, to artificially break the Law into categories. And then to compound the problem, you then, again without Biblical justification, decide that one part of the Law is over (e.g. ceremonial) and another part (e.g. moral) remains in force.

Again, I decide nothing.
I'm not a theologian.
I just learn from what they study....
The Trinity would be one of these things.
The Hypostatic Union would be another.

I know for sure I haven't sacrificed any lambs lately...
but I am required to honor my mother and father.

No it doesn't. And a simple analogy demonstrates this. If the government abolishes the law against speeding, and I choose not to speed, does that fact mean the government has not, in fact, abolished the speeding law? Of course not!

??

Of course I don't. But how does that fact support your position?

It supports my position because animal sacrifice, a ceremonial law, is not longer in effect.
But honoring your mother and father is.

Why?
Because ceremonial laws are abolished.
The Moral Law is not.

But I think we're coming to the end of our discussion.

 

[GodsGrace]

This appears to be the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Let's discuss the relevant Biblical texts.

Be my guest.

Show me how one covenant (pick any)
makes the previous one obsolete.

And if you're going to use Hebrews 8 you will have to show me HOW
the Mosaic Covenant became obsolete.

 

[GodsGrace]

This appears to be the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Let's discuss the relevant Biblical texts.

P.S.
1 am here.
Take your time with the covenants.
'night.

 

[Drew]

It's relevant because the Moral Law is still in effect and the N.T. is chock full of laws that Jesus and Paul left us with. I had posted some letters and verses in a previous post but I see that it's useless.

Where are these verses? And so what if the NT has laws - I am talking about the Law of Moses, not NT teachings. You seem to think that if I don't murder, it must be because I think the Law of Moses remains in force. But, as shown, this is obviously incorrect reasoning. If the civil law against murder were to be abolished, and if I were to not murder, that does not mean that the law is still in force! This strikes as very obvious,

No. I don't believe you live your life sinning.
I believe we all live by divinely inspired guidance...This is the Law in our heart.
You see, it hasn't been abolished,,,just moved from the head to the heart. Ezekiel, Jeremiah.

I suspected you believed something like this. There is a huge problem with such a view - it effectively amounts to memorizing the written code. That cannot possibly be what Paul believes. The difference between a law that you have to read from a list and an exact copy of such a law in your brain is entirely inconsequential. Besides, you have the same old problem of your arbitrary decision that the ceremonial stuff is set aside and the "moral" stuff remains. No NT writer, nor Jesus Himself, ever draws such a distinction.

 

[Drew]

Why would it be a challenge!
Do you mean Romans 7:6?
6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
As we Christians like to say....
The letter of the law kills...
but the Spirit brings life.

Actually, I've already explained this just before...

Chapter 7 speaks about the Law as being like a husband.
When a husband dies a woman is free from him and able to marry again.
The Jews were under a severe Law which they were to follow, but had not the possibility of following it with only their MIND.

Again, I suspected you would make this argument. Paul says we have been released from the Law! And in Galatians he says this:

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [ai]tutor

Yet another statement that we are no longer "under the law". You, and others, appear to bend these two rather clear statements that we have been released from the law into something like: "we still have to follow the law but with our hearts not our minds". That is extremely contrived and you would never hear anyone make that kind of argument in other contexts. If someone said I have been released from a law against parking on street X, no rational person would interpret that as requiring us to still abstain from parking on street X!

 

[Randy]

Yes, the NT regulates the religion of Christianity NOT the OT. Therefore men cannot go back to the OT law to look for justification for the things they do. In doing so would be comitting apsitiual adultery Romans 7:1-4.

If one can go back to the OT to justify "x", then look at the can of worms they have opened up. If one can go back to the OT to justify "x" then one can equally, rightly go back to the OT to justify slavery (as they did before the Civil war) or justify polgamy (as Mormons do).

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

And added to that abstain from sexual immorality.

If one loves as Jesus loves those commandments are fulfilled.

Paul saw all the law as law and considered the law in judgments he made such as ,For Scripture says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

Paul rebuked wickedness and upheld the commandments Jesus emphasized. He also knew that righteousness in Christ was credited to us by faith and aware of the new covenant. As he noted the freedom in Christ from the ceremony laws.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

And Paul noted the importance was in faith expressing itself through love not in works of the law such as circumcision.

They were not made clean by works but by faith in Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

As for many in Israel it was written:
Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So I agree with you in part we use the NT as a guide as to which commandments Jesus is enforcing. We have freedom in Christ but we are not free to continue to sin.

 

[GodsGrace]

Where are these verses? And so what if the NT has laws - I am talking about the Law of Moses, not NT teachings. You seem to think that if I don't murder, it must be because I think the Law of Moses remains in force. But, as shown, this is obviously incorrect reasoning. If the civil law against murder were to be abolished, and if I were to not murder, that does not mean that the law is still in force! This strikes as very obvious,

Jesus left us with the Two Great Commandments:
Matthew 22:37-39
37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’
38“This is the great and foremost commandment.
39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’

After giving these two commandments, Jesus said:
verse 40.....
40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

On these two commandments depends the whole law and the prophets.

What whole law do you believe Jesus was speaking of?
Why do these two commandments encompass all of the Law?

And, I have NOT said that all of the Law of Moses is still in effect.
Could you please confirm that you understand that the Moral Law is still in effect.
I asked you to answer a simple yes or no to this question, but you haven't done so.

ARE WE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS?

I suspected you believed something like this. There is a huge problem with such a view - it effectively amounts to memorizing the written code. That cannot possibly be what Paul believes. The difference between a law that you have to read from a list and an exact copy of such a law in your brain is entirely inconsequential. Besides, you have the same old problem of your arbitrary decision that the ceremonial stuff is set aside and the "moral" stuff remains. No NT writer, nor Jesus Himself, ever draws such a distinction.

?? Why does believing we are still to follow the Moral Law depend on our memorizing a written code?

I said that God said He would put the Law in our hearts.
I didn't read anything about memorizing anything.

Jeremiah 31:33
33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27“I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.


Please exegete the above verses if you think I don't understand them.

 

[GodsGrace]

Again, I suspected you would make this argument. Paul says we have been released from the Law! And in Galatians he says this:

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [ai]tutor

Yet another statement that we are no longer "under the law". You, and others, appear to bend these two rather clear statements that we have been released from the law into something like: "we still have to follow the law but with our hearts not our minds". That is extremely contrived and you would never hear anyone make that kind of argument in other contexts. If someone said I have been released from a law against parking on street X, no rational person would interpret that as requiring us to still abstain from parking on street X!

Let's take a different route.....

Please explain to me the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

BTW,,,,you've never answered my question as to the covenants and how each one does not make the previous one obsolete.

Understanding the Covenants helps us to understand the entire bible better.

IOW,,,what do you think it means to not be under the law but under grace?

 

[Drew]

Jesus left us with the Two Great Commandments:
Matthew 22:37-39
37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’
38“This is the great and foremost commandment.
39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’

After giving these two commandments, Jesus said:
verse 40.....
40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

On these two commandments depends the whole law and the prophets.

I suspect the difference between us hinges on what is really a 'technicality'. You appear to believe that because something from the Law of Moses is endorsed by Jesus this means the Law of Moses (or at least that part of the Law of Moses) remains in force. That is understandable but, I suggest, not strictly correct. Suppose there was a Law A in force in a particular country at a certain time. Then suppose that, for whatever reason, that Law A was abolished and replaced with a Law B. Now Law B may well contain some of the same 'rules' that were in Law A.

But Law A is still off the books, and Law B is in place. Do you understand now why I think we disagree over a technicality?

Have you ever explained why you believe the 'moral law' that you believe is still in effect excludes the stoning stuff? I think it will be difficult to make a case for keeping that stuff out that does not amount to an arbitrary decision on your part - you are comfortable with the moral law against theft, but the moral law about stoning adulterers.

 

[GodsGrace]

I suspect the difference between us hinges on what is really a 'technicality'. You appear to believe that because something from the Law of Moses is endorsed by Jesus this means the Law of Moses (or at least that part of the Law of Moses) remains in force. That is understandable but, I suggest, not strictly correct. Suppose there was a Law A in force in a particular country at a certain time. Then suppose that, for whatever reason, that Law A was abolished and replaced with a Law B. Now Law B may well contain some of the same 'rules' that were in Law A.

But Law A is still off the books, and Law B is in place. Do you understand now why I think we disagree over a technicality?

Have you ever explained why you believe the 'moral law' that you believe is still in effect excludes the stoning stuff? I think it will be difficult to make a case for keeping that stuff out that does not amount to an arbitrary decision on your part - you are comfortable with the moral law against theft, but the moral law about stoning adulterers.

Drew....
Can you stop with the analogies and, maybe, give some scriptural support for what you believe?
I've done this and you won't reply to it.

Forget about Law A and Law B....
LAW A WAS NEVER ABOLISHED.
LAW A is the MORAL LAW.

Please show some verses that state that we are not longer bound by the Moral Law..
or 10 §Commandments
or Jesus' two commandments.

If you cannot do this, then the moral law is still in effect.

You also neglected to tell us the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and
the New Covenant.

 

[GodsGrace]

Let's take a different route.....

Please explain to me the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

BTW,,,,you've never answered my question as to the covenants and how each one does not make the previous one obsolete.

Understanding the Covenants helps us to understand the entire bible better.

IOW,,,what do you think it means to not be under the law but under grace?

Drew


You see,,,I'd like for you to think about something different.
Can you reply to the above...?

 

[Drew]

I want to address this 'law written on the heart' concept. Obviously, I acknowledge that the OT predicts there come a time when the Law - and I will concede the reference here is to the Law of Moses - will be "written on the heart" of the believer. Now some people argue thus:

1. The 10 commandments (and any other 'moral' elements of the Law of Moses) are going to be "written onto the heart".
2. Therefore, how can anybody say these commandments are not in force?

First, I suggest it is rather obvious that the image of "writing a law on the heart" cannot really amount to something as trivial as "memorizing" the 10 commandments! I suggest, instead, the idea has to be something like "the underlying principles of the Law of Moses will be directly accessible to the believer". So it should come as no surprise that Paul sees the Holy Spirit as playing an essential role.

Second, on precisely what basis do you decide that these 10, and not others, of the 613 elements of the Law of Moses get "written on the heart". I see no Biblical basis for such selectivity.

 

[Drew]

Drew....
Can you stop with the analogies and, maybe, give some scriptural support for what you believe?
I've done this and you won't reply to it.

The analogies are essential to my argument - you cannot decide they are invalid. And what scriptural support have you offered that I have not replied to?

 

[GodsGrace]

The analogies are essential to my argument - you cannot decide they are invalid. And what scriptural support have you offered that I have not replied to?

 

[Drew]

Could you please confirm that you understand that the Moral Law is still in effect.

If you are asking me whether should consult the 10 commandments in order to regulate our behavior, the answer is 'no`. I thought I have been clear about this, but the foregoing will hopefully make my stance clear.

?? Why does believing we are still to follow the Moral Law depend on our memorizing a written code?

I said that God said He would put the Law in our hearts.
I didn't read anything about memorizing anything.

But what do you actually mean when you say that He would put the Law in our hearts? How does your view differ from effectively "memorizing" the law - having an 'internal copy' that you would consult to order your behavior? I have explained (recent post) my interpretation of what it means for the Law to be written on the heart of the believer.